Omaha daily bee., 1887-03-02

property OF hundreds Of people in this state.
Ar. Nichoi Of Antelope said that the AMI
mus OF the objection to the constitutional
amendment was the fear that If ii should be
submitted to the people the latter would vote
TO adopt in an overwhelming manner.
Mr.. Jeary vi Cas- said that it had been
CHARGED BY the opponents OF the amend
ment that private property would be de-
stroyed by the same, and replied that he de-
MED to the whisky people on the same
ground the right TO destroy his sons and
other person.
Mr.. Ret Of Hall said that prohibition had
not originated with the members of that
party, but with their wives. In this state
there was now hiEh license. They also had
local option in many places. II prohibition
were wanted, why was it not sought under
high license and local option? tie secuted
prohibition and showed that in Iowa where
10 obtained he had seen men get drunk in the
presence OF their families by drinking whisky
which they carried in their canes.
Mr. Randall OF Clay said that the whisky
people here wanted the state to do for them
what neither Iowa nor Kansas had done for
liquor men within their boundaries. This
was preposterous in the genteman'S opinion.
Mr. Andres of Douglas did not believe in
prohibition, nor yet in local option. lie did
not want the amendment to prevail. He did
not wish 70 be deprived oy a majority of his
personal liberty. II Kansas and Iowa had
already done so TO their residents. that
was no reason why Nebraska should follow
tue people hypOcrites and turn the business
of the saloons into the drug stores. and raise
the price OF drinks from 10 to - cents. lie
denied the right OF any majority to vote away
ms personal liberty. That SavOred too much
OF autocratic rule. In the regions OF the Rus.
sian car IL might be all right, but in this
countrsit was entirely wrong. Ii people
were afraid of their children's destruction,
why were not the children looked after be-
fore ii became too late? Children were al
lowed to 20 to fairs euchre-partleS. Kinks and
other resorts, and the next place they went to
was the saloon. Mr.. Andres then showed
that prohibition would throw thousands out
OF employment, kill number OF home indus
tries, and deprive the farmer OF a home mar
ket for the produce of his farm.
Mt Cole OF Adams moved the committee
report and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Smyth of Douglas moved to amend by
striking out TO sit again"
Mr. Cole amended that the report of the
committee be adopted. Carried.
\ recess was then taken until , p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The question of the prohioItory amendment
to the constitution was called up again in tue
attern Oon and Mr.. Watson OF Otoe took the
floor in support OF his amendment TO the
amendment, which is as follows:
Provided, That 4 o person shall be deprived
OF bis property or the value or use thereof
without due process OF law, and the legisla-
ture shall provide by law for indemnifying
all persons for damages sustained BY reason
OF the provisions OF this article, by provid ing
o mode OF procedure in favor Of such per-
sons ainst the state, in the district court OF
the county wherein the property taken or
damaged or the use thereof is forbidden. is
situated or the claimant resides: and pro.
vided, further, that all property used
in the manufacture OF intoxicating liquors
in this state. az the date OF taking effect OF
this act. shall be paid for by the state to the
full value thereof, when ascertained by the
court aforesaid: and that every person en-
gagged i'll the manufacture Of Intoxicating
liquors at the date of taking effect OF this ar
ticle shall be indemntled TO the full extent
of the DAMAGE he shall have sustained by
reason of being compelled TO abandon such
business Allindemnity herein provided for
shall be ascertained by the district court
aforesaid under law 10 De enacted by the
legislature"
MIR, Watson held that it was but Just 20 the
people who invested money in this state to
be given the assurance that their property
should have the same protection against de-
structiOn that they had when thev eSrab-
lished the same. He wanted to know why,
the prohibition people wanted prohtbttion.f
they did hot enforce the present law. The
fact was that the prOhi0ttOnistS were moral
towards. II they wanted a prOhibtnry law
they could get ii b. paSSn. il in both houses.
There was no necessity IN submitting the
matter to the people. That was done be
cause OF n lack of sincerity and suggested By
desire 10 secure personal aud political pop
ularity. Judge Brewer had held that no leg
isiatuTe could pass a law which deprived q
CONDENSATION
for the same, and that principle was found
in the constitution oT tile United States.
The leading states of the country were now
passing htgh-icense bills, and denouncing
prohibition a. impCactcable. He had always
been republican, and II It had not been Tor
the prOnibiti0nisIs the rcpu5l cans would
long since have seated James q. Blaine in
the presidential chair. Prohibition is wrong
and cannot be enforced. WOuld this amend.
ment close the bars and disti!erieS? 1t would
not. The latter would still sell and manu-
facture, and do so without license.
Mr.. kenney of Webster spoke IN favor OF
the constitutional amendment and opposed
the amendment 10 the amendment.
Mr.. Miller OF Butler made forcible and
sensible speech, in which he claimed that the
prohi0liionistS, IN opposing Nr. WatSon'S
amendment, We're not honest in their work.
They knew that the principles OF the latter
were just to the same degree that their oppo-
nents would expect a railroad TO pay for any
land IL might take n running through their
pay for property which prohibition might
destroy? tie felt the people had right 10
say how they felt upon this question, but he
wanted Mr. Wat-on's amendment TO pass so
that they might know their property was not
10 be destroyed, and il il was to De taken
they would nave pay Tor it,
Mr.. Harlan OF York quoted the state con-
St!tutiOn 10 show that that instrument guar
withOu: due process OF law and held that Nj
WalSOn'S amendment was SuperiiuOus.
A vote WAS taken on Mr.. WatS0n's amend
ment to the amendment and It was lost by
vote OF - to 3.
Mr. Smyth OF DOullas m owed TO strike out
the enacting clause of the neamendment proper
Mt KEEPER OF Pierce made long speech IN
favor OF the fslendment.
Mr. NhlImore OF Douglas secuted the idea
that, because the last republican state con-
yention had put prohibition plank in its
Platform, the republicans, therefore, on the
tiOOr were to be governed by the same, lie
did not believe il, and did not hold himself
bound by IL or anything which confiicted
with his ideas OF what Was right and Just
He did not think it was their duty 10 submit
the question 10 the people But he did feel
that II was their right 10 determine whether
or not the bSst Interests OF the stale de-
manded submission % the people. II thry
did, he would vote for such a submission.
But, as be believed prohibition was a curse,
and would be curse here as il had been in
other places where IL was in force, he would
vote against the submission when the proper
time arrived. lie then showed how even
Massachusetts had come to feel that high
license aud local option were far superior TO
prohibition In this state they had prohibit
ton in effect II the present laws were en-.
forced. lie was not an advocate of the LIQUOR
traftic, but he believed high license was the